
2.-7Z7 
'& 




9BK 



wm !&r 


IS 


■ H 


WeS^mM 






BL 2727 
.146 
Copy 1 



■7 



;*OBn.'iaiH!^!(I^IIiE9i!:i^niBi!!tKd2!M^!ilHIIIJHltHHii!lilS:i!^t!>S]SMSB r ! < BB >H ^ 1 i t Bi !U ESI U1IE2 h 1 SHU1 BB H 1 BOlII^UIBi Ul^ltli^Ur ■£ iiIVl:Ul»^:UU' ^ ^t^ 



^0 

Ai?oti?ep Letter 



QoL L?gePSoll. 



* * * But are you sure that Reason is the only light? Did Reason teach the 
first and most important lesson of your life? Did Reason light you to your mother's breast 
and teach you how to nurse? If Reason could not teach you how to live can Reason teach 
you how to die? * * * 



tys 



/ 



Utinri&n**w 



ll!IBIIIIIIll£li;^lll!§ 



[Copyright 1888.] 















V 



i , x 



ANOTHER 



LETTER TO MR. INGERSOLL 



FROM A BELIEVER. 






"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to Atheism, but depth in 
philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.' 1 — Bacon. 

" Indisputably, the firm believers in the gospel have the great advantage 
over all others— for this simple reason, that, if true they will have their 
reward in the hereafter, and, if there be no hereafter, they can be but with 
the infidel in his eternal sleep, having had the assistance of an esalted hope 
through life, without subsequent disappointment, since (at the worst for 
them) 'out of nothing, nothing can arise,' not even sorrow."— Lord Byron. 






: 



1888. 
CHARLES M. WOODRUFF, 

DETROIT, MICH. 







-i»1 



INTRODUCTORY. 



For some time the writer has devoted an occasional 
spare hour to applying the legal rules of evidence and 
investigation to the doctrines of Christianity. The re- 
sults of his labors he hopes to present to the public in 
some form, in the early future, under the title : "A 
Question of Fact." 

In the meantime, this little brochure, hastily prepared, 
is issued for whatever good it may accomplish; and with 
the hope that it may awaken some truly honest skeptic 
from the dream of security to which the soothing sophis- 
try of Mr. Ingersoll has lulled him, to the end that he 
may begin a search for that true rest which is only 
found in the assurances of faith and Christian experi- 
ence. 

The author is aware that there are greater, and abler 
combatants in the field, but to whomsoever this criti- 
cism may occur, he would suggest the thought that the 
soldier does not refrain from firing his rifle at the enemy 
simply because he hears the thunder of the more efficient 
and destructive artillery. 

Detkoit, Mich., Dec. 8, 1887. 



ANOTHER LETTER TO MR. INGERSOLL 



Col. Robert G. Ingersoll: 

Inasmuch as I do not enjoy the pleas- 
ure of your personal friendship, I will not employ 
the terms of endearment recently passed between your- 
self and Dr. Field. I only know you through your 
writings and speeches. This is the only acquaintance 
which most Christian people have with you, and we 
may therefore be excused if we do really look upon you 
as somewhat of a "monster." Not because of your 
unbelief! Not because of your championship of the 
t( innocence of honest error!" Not because of your 
doubt. The Christian world does not regard Darwin 
as a " monster." Humboldt — one of your heart's idols — 
never made a like complaint. Herbert Spencer does 
not limp whiningly around, and, between the sobs well- 
ing from a broken heart, complain that he has been 
called a "monster." I admit that billingsgate is not 
argument; epithets are not facts; but who began this 
war of unkind words ? 

You should remember that, though Christians, we fall 
short of our High Example. There is only One possess- 
ed of grace enough to turn the other cheek. We are 
moved by passion and actuated by resentment. This 
should not be, but it is. It is not because we are believ- 
ers, but because we are human. So when we find hurled 
at our heads such verbose missiles as "hypocrite," " igno- 



6 A RETURN OF COMPLIMENTS. 

ranee/' "superstition," "bigotry," it is only human 
in us to look around for something to throw back at 
you. When you tell us that because of our orthodoxy 
we are "petrified in mind, whooping around intellect- 
ually simply to save the funeral expenses of our souls," 
you should not complain, if, in the abject poverty of 
our vocabulary, we only call you a " monster." It ag- 
gravates the mildest of us to learn from your charitable 
lips, that we are cl living fossils embedded in the rock 
called faith." Is this the way to redeem a poor benighted 
victim of superstition? Do you open one's eyes by black- 
ing them? Remember that to us deluded, ignorant, 
superstitious, credulous people, religion is sacred. Re- 
member, too, how you have ridiculed, derided, mocked, 
jeered and scorned our Holy Faith ; that which is as 
dear to us as kin and life itself. What can you expect? 
Ridicule does not enlighten; it seeks to wither rather 
than to win. Derision does not convince; it wounds 
instead of heals. Scorn does not convert; it repels and 
not attracts. If we credit you with an "honest doubt," 
or with the expression of a " sincere thought," it must 
be in spite of all your lectures and all your essays. 
Your speeches and your writings do not bear the mark 
of honesty or the brand of sincerity. You only are at 
fault if your purposes and your motives are miscon- 
strued. 

You say the first question between Dr. Field and 
yourself is as to the " innocence of honest error — as to 
the right to express an honest thought." Will you 
please inform us when error is dishonest? Is it not 
really always honest? Dishonest error is hypocrisy, and 
hypocrisy is crime. But if error is innocent you should 
have spared us the opprobrious epithets with which you 
seek to overwhelm us. You should treat poor Calvin 



THE INNOCENCE OF ERROR. 7 

with greater magnanimity. You should never have said 
as you do in the same article: " In regard to Agassiz, 
it is just to say that he furnished a vast amount of testi- 
mony in favor of the truth of the theories of Charles 
Darwin, and then denied the correctness of those theo- 
ries — preferring the good opinion of Harvard for a few 
days to the lasting applause of an intelligent world." Is 
not Agassiz entitled to the same credit for sincerity as 
Humboldt, Darwin or yourself? 

But let us follow this idea of the " innocence of hon- 
est error " to its logical sequence. An act based upon 
an innocent thought must be an innocent act. Was J. 
Wilkes Booth innocent of assassination? Was Charles 
J. Guiteau innocent of murder? Was Jefferson Davis 
innocent of treason ? Booth believed he was serving his 
country ; Guiteau imagined he was serving God ; Jef- 
ferson Davis to this day claims to be the father of mod- 
ern patriotism. Don't you see where you are led? 
Error, though honest, is never innocent ; if it were we 
might acquit some of the greatest villains of history of 
their most terrible crimes, Error, while always sincere, 
is never entirely harmless. 

You do not fail to mention the names of a few hon- 
orable philosophers and scientists who were or are skep- 
tics—not skeptics because of their philosophy, nor phil- 
osophers because of their skepticism. You seem to 
think that an atheistic philosopher or scientist is an 
argument against Christianity. If so it must follow that 
a Christian philosopher or scientist is an argument 
against agnosticism. There is, in mathematics, a pro- 
cess of simplified calculation denominated cancellation. 
We cancel the argument of Humboldt with that of 
Newton ; Darwin with that of Agassiz. Humboldt and 
Darwin are the only personified arguments you produce 



8 HOW FRANKLIN WOULD REBUKE INGERSOLL. 

in your latest effort, but you have more at your 
tongue's end. Bring them forth and we will continue 
the erasing process, until one side or the other is 
exhausted. It will then give us pleasure to invite you 
over to the Lord's side where the balance of philosophy 
and science will remain. 

But you have read the Bible and you conclude that 
it is not true, which leads you to inquire if it is your 
duty to remain silent. That is not for a Christian to 
answer. Indeed a Christian cannot answer it. Your 
duty in the premises must be based upon grounds which 
an ignorant, superstitious Christian cannot comprehend. 
The Christians' rule of conduct is the polygamy-teach- 
ing, slavery-defending, robbery-instructing, and murder- 
instigating Bible. This is why Christians are such a 
polygamous, slave owning, thieving and murdering lot 
of people. This is why the reformation of abuses like 
slavery and polygamy is delegated to atheists and skep- 
tics. We cannot answer your question fairly from a 
Christian standpoint. But, although while dying he 
called for the crucifix, and expired with hi3 great heart 
fixed upon the image of the Savior, you have claimed 
Benjamin Franklin to be one of your sect. We will let 
him answer your question. He would tell you that it 
was your duty to remain silent. He would tell you 
as he told Jefferson and Paine, that, whereas, nothing 
but good followed the teaching of Christianity, the 
preaching of the Gospel ought to be encouraged. Frank- 
lin would also say now, as he said then, that, whereas 
infidelity, though perhaps true, could accomplish noth- 
ing but evil, it ought not to be proclaimed. It is true 
that Franklin, while yet in his 'teens, wrote and pub- 
lished a screed against religion, but when his vision 
became clearer, and his judgment became riper, he 



HOW INGERSOLL READS THE BIBLE. 9 

burned all the copies he could find, and consoled him- 
self with the thought that he had not done much harm 
anyway, because he had printed only a hundred copies, 
and circulated but a few of these. The writing and 
printing of this pamphlet he himself called one of the 
" mistakes " of his life. Two of his other deeds which he 
was pleased to term among the " errors of his life," were 
the embezzlement of 50 pounds he had collected for a 
friend, and the seduction of a young girl who bore him 
an illegitimate son as the fruit of his error. This is the 
category in which Benjamin Franklin places the propa- 
gation of infidelity. 

But how did you read the Bible ? There are several 
ways of reading it. There are several purposes in read- 
ing it. I knew an infidel who had read the Bible in order 
to erase all that he called nasty and vulgar in it. I 
picked up his Bible and found here and there a great, 
black, ugly mark drawn across the w r ords. I enquired 
why he did this. He replied: u In order to make it a 
fit book to have in the house." Like yourself he was an 
admirer of Shakespeare. I took up his Shakespeare and 
glanced over the pages. There was not an erasure in 
the whole volume. I asked him what it was that made 
Shakespeare so immaculate, but received no reply. Have 
you read your Bible with the same spirit that this gen- 
tleman did his? 

But you affirm that there are millions who do not read 
the Bible. We reply, there are millions who do. Is this 
argument? You have read the Scriptures and do not 
believe them; therefore you conclude they are false. 
We answer, that men quite as capable of forming a cor- 
rect opinion as yourself have read them and believe 
them; therefore they must be true. But is this logic ? 
Whether we believe a fact or not, does not alter a fact. 



10 REVELATION ADDRESSED TO REASON. 

Facts are not made by believing nor destroyed by deny- 
ing. The Bible is or it is not true; if true it is a revel- 
ation of facts which Reason can not teach. 

You insist that "if God has made a revelation toman 
it must have been addressed to his reason." You are 
right. Your assertion in this respect is a club with 
which I easily knock you out.* Revelation, not being 
designed to teach man geography or astronomy, humored 
his misconceptions in these branches of knowledge in 
order to bring the spiritual relations of man to his 
Creator within his comprehension. If God had spoken 
in the language of Heaven man would not have under- 
stood him. When you attempt to teach your children 
you address yourself to the understanding of your chil- 
dren. Your boy did not learn his alphabet from a gram- 
mar. This sentence of yours is a sentence of death to 
all objections to the Bible which are founded on alleged 
misstatements of scientific truths in it. Looking back 
from the present we regard Revelation in the light of the 
teachings of science in the age in which it was made. 
In that light we readily understand it. When Revel- 
ation referred to the " ends of the earth," Reason — 
your infallible guide to all truth — taught that the earth 
was flat like a pancake, rather than round like a ball. 
If Revelation had intimated that the world was a sphere, 
Reason would have insisted that it could not be so, be- 
cause one could never stand feet up, on the bottom side 
of a huge ball without falling headlong into space. A 
revelation made in the days of Moses, and based upon 
the science of to-day would have remained a puzzle 

*ln his article in the North American Review Mr. Ingersoll alleges 
that one of Dr. Field's sentences is "a cord with which I easily tie your 
hands." 



FAITH, INSTINCT, AND REASON COMPARED. 11 

which Reason could never solve. Revelation was most 
assuredly " addressed to the reason of man." 

You " admit that Reason is a small and feeble flame, 
a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless 
night — blown and flared by passion's storm" — but are 
you sure " it is the only light ?" Are you sure that if 
you " extinguish that, naught remains?" Did Reason 
teach the first and most important lesson of your life ? 
Did Reason light you to your mother's breast and teach 
you how to nurse ? If Reason could not teach you how 
to live, can Reason teach you how to die ? Faith guides 
us to eternal life, Instinct shows the door to earthly 
existence, while it is left for Reason, least important of 
the three, to guide us in the minor details. So Reason is 
not always "the supreme and final test." 

You ask us what we think of "the Christian mother 
who expects to be happy in heaven, with her child a 
convict in the eternal prison " We know of no such 
mother. A godless son is the source of a Christian 
mother's greatest grief. She prays, and weeps and agon- 
izes over her poor godless boy ; she pleads, entreats and 
begs. When she finds him surfeited with your sophisti- 
cal skepticism she prays again, and trusts that God will 
hear. When the idol of her heart quotes you in answer 
to her warm appeals, she calls you "a monster" and can 
not be blamed. But whence sprang the "sacred rela- 
tions of life, and all the passions of the heart ?" May 
they not really be destroyed by the same Infinity 
which created them, and may not new and more endear- 
ing ones be established in their stead ? We Christians 
do not hope they can, and so we pray, exhort, and scat- 
ter tracts, build churches and missions, send colporteurs 
home and abroad, and in every conceivable way work 
for the salvation of our foes as well as friends. No 



12 WHEN CREDULITY IS A VIRTUE. 

Christian hopes to "look with stony, unreplying, happy 
eyes upon the miseries of the lost." Do churches, mis- 
sions, schools, asylums, and hospitals prove such a hope? 
Is fervent prayer, earnest endeavor, zealous effort evi- 
dence of such a trust ? 

It is not a crime to investigate, to think, to reason, to 
observe nor to express an honest thought ; but it is in- 
famous to employ the arts of sophistry in the consider- 
ation of a question of such awful moment as the eternal 
welfare of a human soul. If it is important to bring to 
bear upon the ordinary questions of life, which affect 
only person and property, correct principles of logic and 
Bound rules of investigation, how much more important 
is this when eternity is involved ! If the pettifogger 
who, by false reasoning, strives to secure a miscarriage 
of justice, is to be despised of all men, what shall we say 
of the dishonest doubter who employs his sophistry in 
the determination of the everlasting fate of an undying 
bouI. 

You inquire if credulity is a virtue. We suppose you 
think it is when it requires us to believe that our great- 
grand-parents were monkeys, and our earlier progenitors 
mollusks. When it demands that we believe that man 
owes his origin to a shapeless protoplast, which, having 
no eyes to see was yet fascinated; with no ears to hear 
was yet attracted; with no heart to break was yet smit- 
ten; with no lips to lisp affection's oft-told tale yet 
wooed, with no arms to clasp to its throbless breast the 
dear little proto-ess it loved best, yet won, and wedded, 
and in the course of events conceived and produced a 
generation of protoplasm just a trifle higher up in the 
6cale of life. You will admit that when credulity asks 
us to believe these tilings it is a virtue. Credulity, how- 
ever, is probably a vice when it requires us to believe 



WHEN CREDULITY IS A VICE. 13 

that this mighty universe, whose bounds the telescopic vi- 
sion of man is unable to discern, whose billions of planets 
are governed by laws so immutable that we can calcu- 
late to the second the position which many of them will 
occupy a century hence, was created and did not come 
by chance; and that the Creator is as infinite in His 
wisdom and power as the universe is in its extent. 
Credulity is probably a vice when it demands that we 
credit the idea that man is not destined to be made by 
disappointments, sorrows, woes, griefs, oppression and 
wrong, fit food for worms, but rather to become a soul 
qualified to appreciate and therefore to enjoy the ever- 
lasting pleasures of Heaven. 

But, seriously, credulity is neither a virtue nor a vice. 
Something depends upon the way in which we exercise 
it. Confidence in the promises of a shoemaker is gener- 
ally misplaced, but the traveller who don't believe in a 
time-table is very apt to get left. One who places very 
much faith in the disinterestedness of a politician is 
quite foolish, but he who listens to the exhortation of a 
Christian preacher can certainly come to no great harm. 
The storm emblems of the Signal Service may not always 
be reliable, but the farmer who don't believe it is going 
to rain when he hears the low murmur of the distant 
thunder in the west will often lose his crops. Nature 
warns us of impending dangers and we suffer if we don't 
believe. We feel a draft, if we are credulous enough 
we shut the window and avoid a cold. There is a dan- 
ger flag for almost every human ill. Health and even 
life do often hang upon our faith. If we are thu3 
warned by reason and by instinct from the evils of an 
earthly life, is it folly to suppose that we may be cau- 
tioned by inspiration against an everlasting death? 
While God in nature warns us against earthly ills, He 



14 THE CONSISTENCY OF CHRISTIANITY. 

docs not forget to caution us against far greater because 
everlasting danger, and happy is the man whose credu- 
lity permits him to believe the warning. 

Dr. Field admits what Christians have always main- 
tained: That persecution for opinion's sake is infamous, 
which gives you an opportunity to assert that God will, 
according to our creed, torture through all the endless 
years the man who entertains an honest doubt, and you 
close the paragraph with: "Beyond this, inconsistency 
cannot go. At this point absurdity becomes infinite." 
Let us see if there is realty any inconsistency here. You 
seem to imagine that man's sole offence against God is, 
according to Christian doctrine, unbelief, whereas unbe- 
lief in itself, is not necessarily a sin. It is not so much 
that one is condemned for unbelief, or for the expres- 
sion of an honest thought, as that unbelief precludes 
immunity from sins already committed. This principle 
is worked out every day and if it proves true in things 
temporal it may in things eternal. Why not ? A man 
accidentally takes poison and will die. The doctor 
prescribes an antidote. The man has no faith in it and 
does not take it. He expresses the " honest thought " 
that that little dose cannot relieve the increasing torture 
that is racking his body. He dies. Is it not an awful 
thought that simply because that poor man would not 
believe the doctor he must die ? To say that that man 
is punished because he can't believe, because he expresses 
an honest thought, is just as consistent as to say that 
the sinner who don't believe the gospel of salvation is 
damned for expressing his honest opinion. The analogy 
is perfect Man is tainted with the virus of sin, which 
will cause his eternal destruction. Christ is the Phy- 
sician who prescribes the certain antidote, and only when 
man has faith enough to accept the remedy will he 



THE MALIGNANCY OF UNBELIEF. 15 

recover. Truth is not more consistent in all its compon- 
ent parts than is Christianity. 

But unbelief, when positive, does some very wicked 
things. " We must admit," you affirm, " that the Jews 
believed in the true God." Sometimes they did, often 
they did not. In Malachithey are reproved for idolatry, 
adultery and infidelity; and the " Messenger" is prom- 
ised, but when the messenger came they rejected Him. 
They did nat " crucify Him at the behest of Jehovah," 
but they hated Him with the same spiteful, venomous 
hatred that a certain class of noisy unbelievers do to-day, 
and for very much the same reason. Christ had exposed 
the hypocrisy and oppression of the scribes and Phari- 
sees,and had drawn around Him the despised masses who 
had not before known what a sweet thing religion was, 
when once stripped of its formality and pomp. He 
righteously and unscathingly denounced the syndicates, 
trusts, combinations and monopolies of His time, and 
He was hated by them just the same as He would be 
hated and despised to-day, if He should come and repeat 
His history in our time. Malignant unbelief and cruel 
infidelity were the wicked murderers of the Blessed 
Redeemer. 

Right here I am reminded that you have made the 
point that, according to our creed, it was necessary for 
Christ to die in order that man might be saved; there- 
fore the Jews who crucified the Savior only assisted in 
the plan of salvation, and ought to be rewarded rather 
than punished. You must remember, if this point 
again occurs to you, that throughout your last article 
you lay unwonted stress upon the intent of an act; you 
have much to claim for an " honest thought " and an 
"honest error." In law intent is the essence of a crime. 
You have read the story of the deacon, who, intend- 



16 THE BENIGNITY OF CHRISTIANITY. 

ing to put a dime in the contribution box, made the 
mistake of dropping in a five dollar gold piece. Upon 
its return being refused, he attempted to console him- 
self with the remark that "lie would get credit for it 
in Heaven, anyway." "Oh, no," was the reply, "you 
will only get credit for the dime you intended to put 
in." The intent of the Jews will determine their re- 
ward or punishment. I went to one of your lectures, 
honestly a little skeptical; I came away with a strong 
faith. Will you claim any reward for the result? 

A myriad of spires pointing toward the blue arch 
above, thousands of asylums for the unfortunate and 
needy, hundreds of hospitals for the sick, flocks of 
white-winged angels of mercy, meekly flitting here and 
there, with untiring zeal, bent on some mission of 
kindness and love, hundreds of thousands loving Christ- 
ian souls prompting willing hands to deeds of charity, 
and millions of Christian hearts beating in sweet sym- 
pathy with the weak and fallen, all give the lie direct to 
your assertion that " a belief in the true God " does 
not make men charitable and just. The truth is that 
Christians are such a noble, honest, true, and generous 
class of people, that an inconsistent one is a glaring ex- 
ception, and is generally given undue prominence. The 
effect of religion seems to be to make men so good 
that when some Christian does transgress, an ordinary 
two line item is padded until it fills a column, over 
which is placed a six line scare-head, beginning with 
rt Another Sunday-school Superintendent Gone Wrong." 
You would know, Mr. Ingersoll, if you were a journal- 
ist rather than a lawyer, that newspapers don't often 
make much of every day occurrences. It is only the 
monstrosities of life to which they give great attention. 
They have advertised you pretty well. 



A CORNER ON THE ELEMENTS. 17 

But you avow an unwonted confidence in man when 
you intimate that "any honest man of average intelli- 
gence, having absolute control of the rain, could do 
vastly better than is being done." The idea is too fool- 
ish for refutation. It would be difficult to find an 7ion- 
est man who would undertake the job. He would be a 
very reckless individual at any rate — more foolhardy 
than an amateur base ball umpire. He would fail to 
satisfy the agricultural and sporting communities at one 
and the same time. He would have to pacify Mrs. Mul- 
cahey for spoiling her washing, or Mrs. O'Brien for 
allowing her cabbage to scorch. His honesty would be 
severely tried. What a snap he might have! what a 
boodle he could control! What opportunities for a cor- 
poration, a monopoly, a syndicate or a "trust/' Our 
fuel and our artificial light, our food and our raiment, 
are already in the control of man. God grant that the 
sunlight and the air, the rain and the snow, may never 
fall under his dominion. Our experience in man's con- 
trol of other commodities is not encouraging. 

In every lecture or essay you bring in the poor slave 
mother whose child has been torn from her breast. It is 
a sort of " property " which you do not fail to utilize on 
every possible occasion — in every act of every perform- 
ance. You propound this conundrum: "Does it not 
seem that God must have felt a touch of shame when 
the poor slave mother — one that has been robbed of her 
babe — knelt and with clasped hands, in a voice broken 
with sobs, commenced her prayer with the words: * Our 
Father.'" A slave mother who would have commenced 
such a prayer, had a consolation and a comfort of which 
you, in the goodness of your heart, would rob her. In 
the after days Faith lightened her burdens, Belief 
soothed her sorrows, Religion calmed her aching heart, 



L8 



CITIZENS IN A DEAD COtttS 



and trusting Hope cheered her drooping spirits ancl 
wiped away her tears. You would have robbed her of 
these and been more cruel than the slave-owner himself. 
You would have said: "We stand between the cold 
and barren peaks of two eternities. You may never see 
your child again, and the only punishment your tyran- 
nical oppressor may endure will-be the 'sweet embrace 
of the dreamless sleep of death,' " 

When you assert that "the most religious nations 
have been the most immoral, the cruelest and the most 
unjust," you forget that all of wrong, of tyranny and 
oppression of which Christian nations have been guilty, 
has been borrowed from pagan countries. The Chris- 
tians of the first centuries learned the art of persecution 
and torment from noble pagan Rome. If they had 
more closely followed the example and teachings of 
Jesus Christ there would not be a history of bloodshed 
and crime for the enlightened Christianity of to-day to 
blush for. The ancient believers were too apt pupils of 
pagan civilization for the honor of the Cross. But, Mr. 
Ingersoll, you believe in the doctrine of the " survival 
of the fittest " — a doctrine which ought to give us of 
to-day, a better poet than Shakespeare, Virgil, Homer 
or David; a more eloquent orator than Demosthenes or 
Cicero; a greater warrior than Hannibal or Csesar. 
Where now is your extolled Egypt ? Where now is 
your ancient Rome ? Where now is proud Greece ? 
Where have they been for centuries back ? You have 
been pleased, upon former occasions, to compare the 
governments of man with what you were pleased to call 
the government of God — by which I understand you to 
mean what we Christians know as God's kingdom. I 
want to belong to a government which has some " stay- 
ing qualities about it." I don't w r ant to pin my faith 



WHAT HOLDS SOCIETY TOGETHER. 19 

to the rotten corpses of departed Egypt, dead Rome, 
defunct Greece. Rather let me claim allegiance to the 
eternal kingdom of God. 

While in the main you have an apparent advantage 
over Dr, Field as a logician, nevertheless you occasion- 
ally commit a serious blunder. You assert that the "in- 
stinct of self-preservation holds society together," that 
" religion itself is born of this instinct, * * * self- 
preservation lies at the foundation of worship." On the 
same page you affirm that the effect of Religion's teach- 
ings " is to weaken the ties that hold families and states 
together." How can this be? Religion, born of an in- 
stinct which holds society together, yet weakens the ties 
of society! I do not know what the rhetorician would 
call this, but common people will say it is nonsense. 
"Beyond this inconsistency can not go. At this point 
absurdity becomes infinite." 

But does the instinct of self-preservation hold society 
together? It did not prevent the disintegration of the 
Roman empire. It did not stay the fall of Greece. 
Historians, modern and ancient, Christian and pagan, 
have a provoking way of dating the decline of most 
fallen nations from the moment of their abandonment 
of the sturdy virtues of their founders for the embrace 
of luxury and vice. The instinct of self-preservation, 
however, is a potent principle, and when coupled with 
wisdom will save one from Hell. It may " lie at the 
foundation of worship," but that does not render wor- 
ship foolish or vain. One can hardly understand your 
logic. Do you mean to argue: Men fear God, therefore 
there is no God; Men seek preservation from future re- 
tribution, therefore there is no retribution? 

The fear of God will do more for the individual and 
he state in one minute than the ins.tinct of self-preserv- 



20 CHRISTIANITY THE FRIEND OF SOCIAL ORDER. 

ation will in a century. This is a homely way of put- 
ting it, but it is a truth just the same. The instinct of 
self-preservation does not govern men half so much as 
the instinct — or whatever you may call it — of self-ag- 
grandizement. The disruption of the American govern- 
ment is seriously threatened by a conglomerate mass of 
syndicalism, " trustism," bossism, corruption, bribery, 
fraud and crime, and " the instinct of self-preservation " 
don't offer any hope of salvation; but when employers 
begin to fear the God who promises ^to "be a swift wit- 
ness against those who oppress the hireling in his wages," 
and when employees begin to fear the God who ex- 
horts the wageworker to be mindful of his employer's 
interests, then a beam of hope will pierce the darkness, 
and we may trust for more rays of sunlight. Your 
"instinct of self-preservation" does not make one hon- 
est — it may compel him to steal, or even to murder; but 
a genuine fear of God will hold the robber's hand, and 
stay the assassin's knife. 

Christianity is the friend of social order and its best 
preserver. While Infidelity bids men " eat, drink and 
be merry for to-morrow we die," Christianity holds a 
brighter, happier world in view, and teaches men not to 
crush the tenderest feelings of humanity in trying to 
get all there is of earth. Skepticism cries: " The grave 
doth swallow all," and with that inscribed upon their 
banners, a horde of heartless seekers after gain, do over- 
ride their weaker fellows in the godless race for gold. 
Whence comes the turmoil, strife and struggle of these 
latter days — the crime, the woe, the want and misery, 
the discord 'niong the people and the nations of the 
world? Are they the breed of faith in better things 
beyond, or are they not the progeny of the idea of "a 
dreamless sleep of death?" 



RETRIBUTION OF "A DREAMLESS SLEEP OF DEATH.'' 21 

%t What are the retributions of history?" Tou answer 
that " the honest were burned at the stake, the patriotic, 
the generous and the noble were allowed to die in dun- 
geons; whole races were enslaved; mothers were robbed 
of their babes. Those who committed these crimes wore 
crowns, and those who justified these infamies were 
adorned with the tiara." Yet afterwards you say: 
"Whoever commits a crime against another must, to the 
utmost of his power in this world, and in another if 
there be one, make full and ample restitution, and in 
addition must bear the natural consequences of his 
offense." This is utter nonsense. When in this world 
does the martyr enjoy his reward? When can the op- 
pressor replace his victim's head, or the tyrant put life 
in the corpse of the man he has slain? There must surely 
be a hereafter. You cannot believe that heroic Martyr- 
dom is to lose its reward in blank oblivion while Tyranny, 
Bigotry and In toleration sink into the sweet embrace of 
a " dreamless sleep of death," which you say is " next 
to a life of joy." If, then, there is a hereafter, can you 
truthfully assert that Injustice and Wrong are triumph- 
ant so long as there is the possibility that Truth and 
Right may have another round on the other side of the 
river of Death? 

We now come to the grave where both Dr. Field and 
yourself have been before. I admit it would be a strange 
place to read a Presbyterian Confession of Faith, and 
your supposition is a violent one. Christian preachers 
do not presume to see within the recesses of the throb- 
less heart all that once beat therein. There is generally 
room for the sweet hope that, unseen by mortal eye, a 
" saving grace " had before death done its work within. 
But I accept your suppositious dialogue as possible, and 
I affirm that your philosophic assurances 3 based upon 



22 INGERSOLL AS A COMFORTEK. 

admitted ignorance of the subject you were talking 
about, would have afforded the weeping woman no con- 
solation. Her tears would hardly quench the fire of 
indignation in her eyes as she would cry in the agony of 
her soul: " Behold the wreck your sophistry has wrought. 
Why did you not keep your misery to yourself? Why 
should you crush the hope and blight the faith of my 
poor boy ? Talk not to me of doubt and unbelief. Your 
sympathy does not soothe; your assurances do not com- 
fort; your speech is golden, but beneath the shallow 
coating is concealed a mass of bitterest gall." You 
would be a very proper person to comfort the bereaved. 
You might place your hands upon the shoulder of an 
aged, trembling roue, between whom and the merited 
punishment for his sins there is now only a very narrow, 
and a rapidly narrowing gulf, and you might soothe him 
thus: "Fear is the jailer of the mind; therefore fear 
not, old sinner. Though the 'narrow vale between the 
cold and barren peaks of two eternities' is filled with 
the ruin of your lust, there is nothing beyond more ter- 
rible than the ' sweet embrace of the dreamless sleep of 
death.' You have never felt remorse before, why suf- 
fer from it now?" Ah! Mr. Ingersoll, if you have com- 
forting qualities about you, it is time you began to exer- 
cise them in alleviating the sorrows of the wretched, 
and dispelling the distress of the forlorn. Some family 
to whom the presence of a minister of the gospel in the 
hour of bereavement would be an aggravation may need 
your services. Please pass around your card and let 
them know where you are found. 

Here is something, Mr. Ingersoll, which is hard for us 
poor, ignorant, benighted, superstitious, credulous peo- 
ple to comprehend. You say you do not know " whether 
there is or is not a God ;" that " we cannot say whether 



A RICKETY SUPERSTRUCTURE. 23 

death is a wall or a door." Yet you profess to know a 
great deal about it. If a God exists, you know that He 
cannot step between an act and its natural effects ; you 
know He has nothing to do with punishment, nothing to 
do with reward. Here is positive, certain, absolute 
knowledge based upon confessed and utter ignorance. 
To us simple, believing people this seems very unscientific 
and illogical. Knowledge is a superstructure which re- 
quires a foundation. You knock out the foundation and 
suspend the building from some imaginary beam strung 
across space, with its ends resting on vacancy. You 
assure us that " an infinite God could not change the rela- 
tion between the diameter and circumference of a circle.' , 
If I were versed in rhetoric I would know what to call 
this statement. As it is I will denominate it an absurd- 
ity on its very face ; for a God who couldn't change the 
relation between the diameter and circumference of a 
circle would not be infinite. 

Your illustration of the seducer and his victim is one 
which has often troubled me. I, myself, cannot con- 
ceive of any justice in the salvation of the betrayer and 
the damnation of the betrayed. I remember, however, 
that the world generally regards the two in the same 
aspect that you imagine religion does. In the world the 
ruined are scorned and repelled, while fulsome flattery is 
often lavished upon the base wretch who does not hesi- 
tate to heap with infamy the reputation of the poor girl 
he has debauched. This rank injustice meets us on every 
side. It is a characteristic of heathendom, savagery 
and barbarity. It is the same in China, Japan, Asia, all 
Europe and America. It is the same in all ages, and in 
all religions — except the religion of Jesus Christ. It is 
the same under Confucius, Buddha, and Mohammed. 
Christianity alone offers a relief to the eye of Justice, 



24 WHERE THE SEDUCER SEEKS SOLACE. 

from the uniformity of this scene of misery and wrong. 
Christ's treatment of the poor woman taken in adultery 
almost proves His divinity of itself, and affords an an- 
swer to your objection. 

The practical application of your objection is this: so 
far as my knowledge extends I know of no betrayer who 
is in any immediate danger of going to heaven. I look 
around me in the churches I attend and I see no seducer 
bowing his head in worship. There may be, of course, 
but I have no moral or legal right to presume so in the 
absence of even an accusation. On the other hand I 
have heard you upon more than one occasion, and every 
time I have beheld among the most enthusiastic applaud- 
ers of your blasphemy, old roues who valued the remem- 
brances of their many wrecks very much as toe savage 
prizes the scalps that hang about his belt. It is in the 
possibility of "the dreamless sleep of death" — the hope 
that the grave swallows all — that the seducer seeks his 
immunity from the punishment of his crimes. The 
cries of his victim do not fill his heart with remorse. 
The only remorse he feels is actuated by the fear of an 
eternal hell, but this remorse does not bring forth repen- 
tance and without repentance he cannot be saved. 

You "believe in the manly doctrine that every human 
being must bear the consequences of his acts, and that 
no man can be justly saved or damned on account of 
the goodness or the wickedness of another." Your 
statement, though plausible, is daily disproved by the 
actual experiences of life. Hundreds escape the conse- 
quences of their acts, and many wrong doers are saved 
from punishment on account of the goodness of their 
friends and kindred. Then where do you find room for 
the merited punishment of crime and oppression. Accord- 
ing to your creed there is no certainty of any punish- 



THE TRUE IDEA OF SALVATION. 25 

ment hereafter, and you surely do not believe that in 
this life there are any "consequences" commensurate 
with the crimen of murder, rape and seduction, which 
are certain to follow. It would seem the more murders 
one committed the greater punishment he should receive. 
The converse is the conclusion of your argument. A 
man in high temper may strike down and kill his fellow 
in a quarrel. This is the least heinous form of 
homicide known to the law ; and yet that man will suf- 
fer from the pangs of remorse a thousand-fold more 
than he who makes murder the business of his life. Im- 
pelled by the heat of passion a young man may seduce 
a girl, and never afterwards be free from the bitter 
stings of conscience, but it is doubtful if your man of 
the town, who numbers his victims by scores, ever suf- 
fered one moment's loss of sleep on account of his multi- 
plied offenses. The only thing that worries the profes- 
sional murderer and seducer is the fear of hell, and the 
only refuge they seek is in your dubious assurances of 
"a dreamless sleep of death." 

You have an idea that the whole scheme of salvation 
rests upon belief; you make no account of the item of 
repentance — a very essential one. Evangelists sometimes 
make the same blunder. The most beautiful illustration 
of the doctrine of salvation I have ever read is this : 
perhaps you have seen it before: 

" Some Christians act as though they thought when 
"the Lord said, 6 Suffer little children to come unto Me ' 
" that He had a raw-hide under His mantle — they act as if 
"they thought so. That is all wrong. I tell my children 
"this: Go where you may, commit what crime you may, 
"fall to what depths of degradation you may, I can 
" never shut my arms, my heart or my door to you. As 
"long as you live you shall have one sincere friend; do 
" not be afraid to tell anything wrong you have done. 



26 REJECTED MERCY. 

«* * * When your child confesses to you that he has 
"committed a fault, take the child in your arms, and let 
"it feel your heart beat against its heart, and raise your 
"children in the sunlight of love, and they will be sun- 
"be^ms to you along the pathway of life." 

These words will sound familiar to you for they are 
your words; the offer which God holds out to His chil- 
dren is the same. How it would break your heart, 
though, if your child would meet this warm expression 
of parental love and forgiveness with scoffs and jeers, 
with ridicule and scorn. You would then be able to 
appreciate the agony which wrung the great heart of 
Jesus, as He looked upon the city of His own, which had 
rejected Him, and cried: "Oh! Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 
thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which 
are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered 
thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her 
chickens under her wings, and ye would not? 

You are unduly exercised over the fate of the " count- 
less billions of the human race, who have never had an 
opportunity of doing right." It is not heresy to trust 
that a merciful Father has provided for all of His chil- 
dren; we can safely leave that to Him. But whatever 
excuse they may have upon this score, it will not avail 
you. 

While life can never be " exceedingly joyous to one 
who is acquainted with its miseries, its burdens and its 
tears," there is in Christianity a comfort and a peace 
which assuages all griefs and soothes all sorrows. Any 
misfortune or adversity which may befall the follower 
of Jesus can not overcome him — in spite of them he 
may be perfectly happy. It is sympathy with others in 
misery, want and woe that makes the believer sad. His 
life, which might be an absolutely happy one in his 



THE FINAL SEPARATION. 27 

faith, is alloyed by the pain he feels at the thought that 
thousands of his fellows are doomed to destruction by 
the willful rejection of God's mercy and love. 

It is too true that things are mixed in this world. 
"Darkness follows light;" the good and evil dwell to- 
gether; sunshine and shadow alternate each other; virtue 
and vice walk side by side; truth and error are in con- 
stant company. But there is coming a day of separa- 
tion and classification; a day of "sorting out" the 
good and casting the bad away; a day when the 
great Husbandman will permit the winds of judgment 
to blow through the falling grain and carry off the 
worthless chaff. What greater Hell could be con- 
ceived than for lust, coveteousness, hatred, pride, envy, 
intemperance, spite and revenge to be compelled to live 
in its own company untempered with the benign influ- 
ence of purity, charity, mercy, love, peace, sobriety and 
forgiveness? What more peaceful and glorious Heaven 
could be imagined than for all the virtues to enjoy their 
mutual companionship unmarred by the presence of any 
vice? The fact of such an eventual separation, and the 
results of such a separation are reasonable and philo- 
sophic. 

You are somewhat confused, Mr. Ingersoll, when you 
assert that darkness follows light around the globe. Not 
only by the Biblical account, but by every scientific 
theory of the creation ever advanced, light follows dark- 
ness. You have reversed the order of things, and it 
makes all the difference in the world. The future state 
is infinitely better and it is likewise infinitely worse than 
this — depending entirely upon which future state you 
choose. You should take the glare of hell as the dan- 
ger signal of a bottomless abyss ahead, over which there 
is no bridge. 



2b CHRISTIANITY AND THE FAMILY RELATIONS. 

In the light of human experience and observation your 
assertions concerning the influences of Christ's teachings 
upon the family relation are the senseless jabbering of 
a harmless idiot. It is appropriate "in a mad-house." 
The testimony of even the skeptical world substantiates 
the beneficial influence of Christianity upon the family, 
society and the state. You " object to Christianity 
because it divides the family." It is true that from the 
beginning many who have espoused the cause of Christ 
have been driven from the " sacred roof-tree " by the perv 
sedition of their unnatural anti-Christian kindred. It is 
true that Christ pronounced a blessing upon such as 
these. You should visit your censure upon the head of 
spiteful unbelief for this {state of affairs. I will not, 
however, believe that you are as wofully ignorant as 
you pretend of the true intent of Christ's blessing. I 
can come to no other conclusion than that, for the sake 
of making a point, you deliberately pervert the spirit 
of the blessing. You know that those to whom it w r as 
promised were not the Christians who should drive their 
kindred from their houses because they lacked faith; it 
was to those who were to be cruelly disow r ned and dis- 
carded; aye, bound and gagged, and cast in dungeons 
by their parents and brethren because of an u honest 
belief " in the Savior; it was to those who were to be 
denied the privilege of " entertaining an honest thought " 
by their pagan friends. 

What agency is there more potent and more persistent 
in the defense of the marriage relations — the relations 
of the family — against the varied assaults of "free- 
love " and other isms which largely comprise the Na- 
tional conventions of free-thinkers, to which you do not 
fail to make an annual pilgrimage—of w T hich you have 
been, if you are not now, the presiding spirit? Whence 



INFIDELITY A8 A SABBATH ROBBEB. 29 

has more vigorous protests against the looseness of our 
divorce laws arisen than from the church? 

You think "it is better to love man than God." The 
truth is, the better one loves God the better he loves 
his fellow men, and the dearer to him are wife and chil- 
dren. The better one serves Christ the better he serves 
humanity. Christianity teaches us that in doing good 
to all men, in visiting the sick, in clothing and feeding 
the poor, in comforting the fatherless, in housing the 
homeless, in sheltering the aged and infirm, in perform- 
ing other works of charity and love we are serving 
Christ; and this is how we can serve God. 

You are "an enemy to the orthodox Sabbath." You 
do not apprise us of this for the first time. In your 
blasphemous ravings at Whitney's Opera House on the 
evening of February 8, 1885, you informed us that "God 
had stolen one-seventh of man's time." Ask the brain- 
wearied clerk, as he lays down his pen, and thanks 
Heaven that it is Saturday night, if he thinks the estab- 
lishment of one day out of every seven as a day of rest, 
was an act of theft; ask the tired merchant, when he 
puts up the shutters at the close of the week, if he feels 
that he is robbed, because he need not take them down 
again for forty-eight hours; ask the overburdened and 
underpaid laborer, as he wipes the perspiration from his 
brow, and congratulates himself that he will not be 
obliged to crawl out of bed at half-past four in the 
morning, if he has any particular longing for the reign 
of Ingersollism, when there would be no intermission of 
work from one year's end to another; ask the shop girl 
or seamstress if she never went home from her work 
with a heart lightened by the joyful anticipation of a 
day's respite from weary toil Workingmen, think! 
Think of what the world would be without the Sabbath. 



30 rSG-ERSOLL REPUDIATES HIS u OWL-HOOT." 

Work, work, work, work, work, work from January 
first until the very last day of the year. No intermis- 
sion. No cessation. No milestones in the toilsome 
journey of life to greet the longing eye or cheer the 
weary soul. Realize, if you can, the monotony. Would 
it not drive us mad, and make this a world of raving 
lunatics, whose chorused cry would be for " rest, rest, 
rest?" 

How long since is it that you have been convinced 
that " Christianity has changed rapidly during the last 
century." You must undoubtedly recall the " owl hoot " 
figure you have been wont to use. It does not serve 
your purpose in the present case, and so you do not pro- 
duce it. Tou have it stored away, perhaps in your 
" property-room," but lest you may have lost it, I will 
call it to your mind: "They (orthodox clergy) sit like 
owls upon some dead limb of the tree of knowledge, and 
hoot the same old hoots that have been hooted for eigh- 
teen hundred years." It would seem as if you were in 
the rapid transmogrification business yourself. 

I will not, for the present, undertake to follow you 
further. The great question, upon which we so widely 
differ, is not one of sentiment but of fact. The uni- 
verse either did or did not have a Creator. There is 
or there is not an eternity. There is or there is not 
an Infinite Being. By applying the same rules of inves- 
tigation which you employ in determining other ques- 
tions of fact in a court of law most people living in this 
age and land will conclude that the probabilities are that 
the Christian religion is essentially true. The doubt, at 
least, is in its favor, and so long as there is a shadow of 
a doubt upon the subject, men cannot afford to be pro- 
nounced infidels, or even affirmed agnostics. Human 
observation and experience will lead the reason to con- 



SPECULATIONS OF " SCIENCE" CONTKABY TO REASON. 31 

elude that the universe is the result of a design, a plan, 
a purpose. It is true we must regard the matter in the 
best light we have, and Christians do not hope to enable 
doubters to discern in the dim glimmer of Reason what 
is only clearly revealed in the sunlight of Faith. What 
modern science asks us to credit is entirely at war with 
human reason and experience. The evolution of man 
from an inert, helpless little mass of nothingness is 
repugnant to reason and experience. So far back as the 
memory and history of man runneth, before the birth of 
any animal there has been another animal of the same 
species. 

Even the theory of the creation of the universe now 
generally advanced by scientists, does not accord with 
man's observation and experience. They ask us to attri- 
bute to vapor properties which we know vapor does not 
possess. Tou might make a negro believe you had been 
throwing peanuts at him when you hit him in the head 
with a brick, but you could not get him to believe you 
had struck him with a piece of solidified vapor. You 
see science requires more credulity than religion ; it has 
its wonders and miracles. They differ from religion in 
this : miracles based upon the idea of an All-powerful 
Being are not wonderful, after all. But when you take 
away from miracles a sentient personage possessing the 
power to design and act they become real wonders. 

If, then, the earth was — with the rest of the universe 
— created, there must have been a Creator. That Creator 
must have been and must be all-powerful. It is repug- 
nant to the better feelings of the human heart to believe 
that He is no more merciful than the convulsions of 
nature and the vicissitudes of earthly life would indicate. 
But whether He is infinitely just, infinitely merciful, or 
infinitely cruel and oppressive, except through Faith 



32 FAITH GRANTS A TITLE-DEED OF PEACE. 

and Revelation, we cannot tell. Reason leads us no 
further. According to the indications of Nature He 
may be either. So far as Reason can aid us now we are 
in blank despair. Here Faith comes and lifts the veil. 
Revelation raises the curtain, and a beautiful scene of 
divine love, mercy and forgiveness greets the anxious 
eye ; the burden rolls off the troubled soul, and the joy- 
ful heart is given a patent of experience which all the 
technical quibbles of a sophistical skepticism can never 
invalidate. 



II1BIMIIIP F C0NGRESS 

019 971 81?7 




'■ '■ • ' ' mm ■■'-■' 

-■■'■■■ 






(fSw 



m&, 



jGfig 

aaRS 



|nn 






lilnHHR18 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



019 971 813 7 



Hollinger 

pH 8.5 

Mill Run F03-2193 






